On the necessity to update regulatory documents in the field of earthquake-resistant construction
On the necessity to update regulatory documents in the field of earthquake-resistant construction

On the necessity to update regulatory documents in the field of earthquake-resistant construction

DOI: 10.37153/2618-9283-2021-6-62-71

Authors:  

Zubritskiy Maksim Aleksandrovich

postgraduate student of department «Power Supply of Enterprises and Energy Resource Saving Technologies» of Kazan State Power Engineering University, tel.: +7 (982) 612-44-01, zubrickiy_maksim@mail.ru, 420066, Kazan, Saydasheva str., 12, r. 211


Ushakov Oleg Yurievich

Candidate of Engineering Sciences, Associate Professor of the department «Computer-Aided Design Systems of Structures» of the Institute of Civil Engineering and Architecture of Ural Federal University, 620002, 17 Mira street, r. SP-201, Ekaterinburg, Russia


Sabitov Linar Salikhzanovich
Candidate of Engineering Sciences, Associate Professor the department «Power Supply of Enterprises and Energy Resource Saving Technologies» of Kazan State Power Engineering University, Associate Professor of the Department of Biomedical Engineering and Innovation Management of Kazan Federal University


Rubric:     Technical regulation and design standards development   
Key words: seismic impact, strength level earthquake, ductility level earthquake, dynamic coefficient, response spectrum, response spectrum analysis, nonlinear static method (Pushover Analysis), time history analysis
Annotation:

In 2019, scientific journal “ACADEMIA. ARCHITECTURE AND CONSTRUCTION” published an article «Dynamic coefficients or response spectra of structures to earthquake ?» by E.N. Kurbatskiy and V.L. Mondrus [10]. The authors claim about necessity of normative documentation updating for seismic resistance estimation in terms of replacing the initial effects assignment through the dynamics coefficients graphs with the response spectra.

Inspired by the work of Kurbatskiy E.N. and Mondrus V.L., the authors proposed a number of improvements that will help eliminate the current inconsistency with modern knowledge in seismology and the current level of development of dynamic methods for seismic resistance estimation.

Used Books:

1. Korchinskij I. L. Raschyot sooruzhenij na sejsmicheskie vozdejstviya [Tekst]/ I. L. Korchinskij. Nauchnoe soobshchenie CNIIPS. 1954. 76 p. (In Russian)

2. SN 8-57. Normy i pravila stroitel'stva v sejsmicheskih rajonah [Tekst]. Moskva: Ctrojizdat, 1958. 106 p. (In Russian)

3. SP 14.13330.2014 Stroitel'stvo v sejsmicheskih rajonah SNiP II-7-81* (aktualizirovannogo SNiP II-7-81* "Stroitel'stvo v sejsmicheskih rajonah" (SP 14.13330.2011)) (s Izmeneniem №1) (In Russian)

4. SP 14.13330.2018 «Stroitel'stvo v sejsmicheskih rajonah. Aktualizirovannaya redakciya SNiP II-7-81* (s Izmeneniem №1)» (In Russian)

5. EUROPEAN STANDARD: EUR 25204 EN. Eurocode 8: Seismic Design of Buildings – Worked examples. – Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2012, 522 p.

6. FEMA-356. Prestandard and Commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings – American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, VA, 2000, 519 p.

7. GB 50011-2010. Code for Seismic Design of Buildings

8. Applied Technology Council: ATC-40. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings – Redwood, CA, 1996, 334 p.

9. Suyehiro K. A Seismic Vibration Analyser and the Records Obtained Therewith / K. Suyehiro. Bulletin of the Earthquake Research Institute-University of Tokyo. 1926, no. 1, pp. 59–64.

10.Kurbackij E.N., MondrusV.L. Dinamicheskie koefficienty ili spektry reakcij (otvetov) sooruzhenij na sejsmicheskie vozdejstviya. Academia. Arhitektura i stroitel'stvo. 2019, no.1, pp. 107–114. (In Russian)

11. Kurbackij E.N., MondrusV.L., Pestryakova E.A. K voprosu o korrektnom zadanii iskhodnoj sejsmicheskoj informacii. Academia. Arhitektura i stroitel'stvo. 2021, no.1, pp. 134-143. (In Russian)

12. Kurbackij E.N., Mazur G.E., Mondrus V.L. K voprosu o dinamicheskih koefficientah v zadachah o sejsmicheskih vozdejstviyah. Academia. Arhitektura i stroitel'stvo. 2019, no. 4, pp. 110-118. (In Russian)

13. NP-031-01. Normy proektirovaniya sejsmostojkih atomnyh stancij. Gosatomnadzor Rossii (In Russian)

14. Newmark N. M. Seismic design criteria for structures and facilities Alaska pipe-line system. Proceedings of U.S. national conference on earthquake engineering. 1975, pp. 94 –103.

15. Ushakov O.Yu. Uchet prostranstvennogo haraktera sejsmicheskogo vozdejstviya pri raschete zdanij i sooruzhenij. Dissertaciya na soiskanie uchenoj stepeni kandidata tekhnicheskih nauk. Ekaterinburg, 2014. 165 p. (In Russian)

16. Chopra A.K., GoelR.K. A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings. EarthquakeEngStructDyn 31(3), 2002, pp.561–582.

17. Fajfar P. A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design. Earthquake Spectra 16(3), 2000, pp.573–593.

18. Gupta B., KunnathS.K. Adaptive Spectra-based Pushover Procedure for Seismic Evaluation of Structures. Earthquake Spectra, vol. 16, no. 2, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, California, 2000, pp. 367-392.

19. Sasaki K.K., Freeman S.A., and Paret T.F. Multimode Pushover Procedure (MMP)—A Method to Identify the Effects of Higher Modes in a Pushover Analysis. Proceedings, Sixth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, 1998.

20. Themelis S. Pushover analysis for seismic assessment and design of structures. Heriot-Watt University, School of Built Enviroment, 2008.

21.Timoshenko S.P. Teoriya kolebanij v inzhenernom dele. M.-L.: ONTI, 1931. 344 p. (In Russian)

Возврат к списку